[Peace-discuss] AWARE "disrespectful to Israel"?

[C. G. Estabrook]

A series of objections to the flyer I wrote that was made available at 
the July 4 parade and distributed at the July 7 Main Event ("America 
Salutes Free Enterprise -- But Not Corporate Control and War" 
<http://anti-war.net/pdfarch/070707-FreeEnterprise-CGE.pdf>) has been 
put forth by Bob Illyes.  None of them has had much substance, but at 
Sunday night's AWARE meeting he settled on objecting to a plural: the 
reference in the flyer to "America's criminal wars and occupations in 
the Middle East."

There was only one American occupation, said Bob, and that was in Iraq 
(he ignored Afghanistan), so the phrase suggested that the US was 
responsible for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.  To 
imply that the US sponsors Israel's occupation of the Occupied 
Territories, or that Israel is a proxy for the US, is "disrespectful to 
Israel," said Bob.

There's a remarkable similarity here to a dispute in AWARE two years 
ago, when the distribution of an AWARE flyer at an Obama rally in 
Champaign was said to be "disrespectful to the Senator."  (I wrote about 
that in "Obama the Enabler: Illinois Anti-Warriors and the Attractive 
Senator" at <http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook09292005.html>.)  It's 
become clear in the time since then that we were far too respectful of 
the Senator: see, e.g., Paul Street's review of Obama's book, "The 
Mendacity of Hope" (have I got that title wrong?) at 
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11936>.  Today Obama 
is claiming to be "anti-war," because most Americans are.  But his real 
views are welcomed by the Neocons: see Robert Kagan, "Obama the 
Interventionist" at 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns>.

The close alliance between the US and Israel is obvious, although there 
are two divergent accounts of how it's to be understood.  Israel is and 
has been by far the largest recipient of US money of any country in the 
world, and the countries in second and third places, Turkey and Egypt, 
are part of the effective alliance the US pays for as part of its Middle 
East policy.  Israel's role in this alliance for forty years has been to 
be the "local cop on the beat," in the words of the Nixon 
administration.  (I wrote about that role on the eve of the US invasion 
of Iraq: <http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook02262003.html>.)

	*	*	*

The first account of the US-Israel relation is that put forth last year 
by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the 
Kennedy School at Harvard in "The Israel Lobby" 
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html>.  According to their view, 
"the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in 
order to advance the interests of another state"; US Middle East policy 
is driven primarily by the "Israel Lobby," defined as a "loose coalition 
of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign 
policy in a pro-Israel direction." The authors state that the "core of 
the Lobby" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their 
daily lives to bend US foreign policy so that it advances Israel's 
interests." They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the 
Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli 
policies," but "No lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far 
from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while 
simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are 
essentially identical."  They argue that the "loose coalition" that 
makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the Executive branch," 
as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on 
Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They claim that 
AIPAC in particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to 
its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who 
support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."

Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of 
anti-Semitism," and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance 
on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however, 
that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate 
criticism of Israel from college campuses" (although the Finkelstein 
case at DePaul is a recent victory). The authors conclude by arguing 
that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping US policy in the Middle East, 
then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free 
hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the 
fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."

	*	*	*

The second -- and to my mind much better -- account is summarized in 
Noam Chomsky's response to Mearsheimer and Walt (see "the Israeli 
Lobby?" Znet <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm>):

	"It's a serious, careful piece of work. It deserves to be read. They 
deserve credit for writing it. But it still it leaves open the question 
of how valid the analysis is ... Everyone agrees, on all sides, that 
there are a number of factors that enter into determining U.S. foreign 
policy. One is strategic and economic interests of the major power 
centers within the United States. In the case of the Middle East, that 
means the energy corporations, arms producers, high-tech industry, 
financial institutions and others. Now, these are not marginal 
institutions, particularly in the Bush administration. So one question 
is to what extent does policy reflect their interests. Another question 
is to what extent is it influenced by domestic lobbies. And there are 
other factors ... to try to sort out their influence is not so simple. 
In particular, it's not simple when their interests tend to coincide, 
and by and large, there's a high degree of conformity ... what's called 
the national interest (meaning the special interests of those in whose 
hands power is concentrated) tends to conform to the interests of the 
lobbies ... it's pretty hard to disentangle them.

	"The thesis of the book is that the lobbies have overwhelming 
influence, and the so-called 'national interest' is harmed by what they 
do. If that were the case, it would be, I would think, a very hopeful 
conclusion. It would mean that US policy could easily be reversed. It 
would simply be necessary to explain to the major centers of power -- 
like the energy corporations, high-tech industry and arms producers -- 
that their interests are being harmed by this small lobby that screams 
anti-Semitism and funds congressmen. Surely those institutions can 
utterly overwhelm the lobby in political influence, in finance, and so 
on, so that ought to reverse the policy.

	"Well, it doesn't happen, and there are a number of reasons for it. For 
one thing, there's an underlying assumption that the so-called national 
interest has been harmed by these policies ... Have the energy 
corporations been harmed by US policy in the Middle East over the last 
60 years?  They're making profits beyond the dream of avarice.  The main 
concern of the US has been to control what the State Department 60 years 
ago called “a stupendous source of strategic power,” Middle East oil: 
they’ve controlled it ... The major barrier was called 'radical 
nationalism.'  It was symbolized by Nasser, but also Kassem in Iraq, and 
others.  Israel destroyed Nasser in 1967, a tremendous service to US 
power, to the energy corporations, to Saudi Arabia, and to the main 
centers of power here; and in fact it was after that victory that the 
US-Israeli relations really solidified, and Israel became a 'strategic 
asset'...

	"Israel has performed many other services to the United States. So in 
the 1980s, particularly, Congress was imposing barriers to the Reagan 
administration's support for and carrying out major terrorist atrocities 
in Central America. Israel helped evade congressional restrictions by 
carrying out training, and so on, itself. The Congress blocked U.S. 
trade with South Africa. Israel helped evade the embargo to both the 
racist regimes of Southern Africa, and there have been many other cases. 
By now, Israel is virtually an offshore US military base and high-tech 
center in the Middle East."

	*	*	*

Of course there's another account -- the thoroughly propagandized view 
held by both political parties in the US.  Chosen almost at random, 
here's the liberal speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy 
Pelosi, swearing fealty to Israel in a speech to AIPAC 
<http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0527-23.htm>:

	"America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in 
prosperity and in hardship ... There are those who contend that the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the 
West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of 
the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the 
fundamental right of Israel to exist.

	"The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of 
devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both 
political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to 
confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has 
plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.

	"The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the 
sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon - 
and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues to 
take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast that the 
United States.  [This speech was delivered the summer before Israel took 
the risk for peace of invading Lebanon, with the support of its 
steadfast friend and Ms. Pelosi...]

	"In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding 
places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water 
in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'

	"The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and 
forever."

Now and forever, right. If, in order to avoid being "disrespectful to 
Israel," AWARE is going to refuse to recognize America's real relation 
to Israel and accept instead the fantasy about that relation typical of 
American politics, we might as well commit our anti-war work into the 
co-opting hands of the Democrats and go do something more interesting.

--CGE